Flashcard Machine - create, study and share online flash cards

Ex parte Hull (1941)

First Supreme Court ruling to break down the “hands off” doctrine; corrections officials cannot interfere with inmates’ right to file habeas corpus petitions.

Coffin v. Reichard (1944):

 Inmates retain civil rights while imprisoned, and courts should review lawsuits over conditions of confinement in addition to habeas corpus claims

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, thus violating the 8^th Amendment. 

Monroe v. Pape (1961): 

people can use Section 1983 of federal law to sue officials when their constitutional rights have been violated

Wolff v. Mcdonnell (1974): 

The basic elements of procedural due process must be present when decisions are made concerning the disciplining of an inmate. These procedural rights aren’t the same as those among people in the free world, but inmates still have constitutional protections.

Wilson v. Seiter (1986): 

Prisoners must not only prove that prison conditions are objectively cruel & unusual but also show that they exist because of the deliberate indifference of officials. Under 1983, “deliberate indifference” means a “culpable state of mind” on the part of prison officials. 

Lewis v. Casey (1996):

constitutional right to court access is violated only if an inmate’s attempt to pursue a legal claim is actually hindered by prison officials; inadequacies in prison legal services aren’t enough

Turner v. Safley (1987):

prison regulations that impinge on inmates’ constitutional rights are valid if “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

Shaw v. Murphy (2001):

The standard established in Turner applies to ALL constitutional rights of inmates, including First Amendment rights.

Hudson v. McMillian (1992):

 prisoners don’t need to sustain a serious injury in order to prevail in a civil action. If a prisoner can show that the officer used force “maliciously and sadistically,” this is enough

Johnson v. California (2005): 

inmates cannot be segregated on the basis of race/ethnicity, even temporarily for security reasons. 

Morrissey v. Brewer (1972): 

Due process   mandates both a preliminary and a final hearing before parole can be revoked.

Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973):

Parolees are entitled to legal representation at all revocation hearings.

Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex (1979): 

Parole is a privilege, not a right, and only limited due process rights apply.

Bell v. Wolfish (1979): 

intrusive body cavity searches are not a 4^th Amendment violation; Double-bunking and the “publisher only rule” are constitutional; strip searches, including searches of body cavities after contact visits, may be carried out when the need for such searches outweighs the personal rights invaded.